What does Putin want?

Filed in National by on January 24, 2022

If you think that Putin isn’t deploying 100,000 troops, short-range ballistic missiles, and elite spetsnaz operators on the Ukranian border for nothing, this explanation of what Putin actually wants makes sense.

We continue not to know what Vladimir Putin intends nor wants with his massive military buildup around Ukraine, accompanied by diplomatic demands, primarily on the United States, that will not be satisfied.

Michael Kofman is one of the best military analysts around, and well able to extrapolate from the military to Putin’s objectives. His latest summary suggests that Putin will take major military action against Ukraine, perhaps to install a Russia-friendly regime in Kiev.

Given the stakes, and likely costs, any Russian military operation would have to attain political gains that give Moscow the ability to enforce implementation. In short, just hurting Ukraine is not enough to achieve anything that Russia wants. While some believe that Russia intends to compel Ukraine into a new Minsk-like agreement, the reality is that nobody in Moscow thinks that a Ukrainian government can be made to implement any document they sign. Such a settlement would be political suicide for the Zelensky administration, or any other. Russia has no way to enforce compliance with its preferences once the operation is over. This is, at least, the lesson that Moscow seems to have taken from Minsk I and Minsk II. Why would Minsk III prove any different? Russia has not struggled in getting Ukraine to sign deals at gunpoint, but all of these have resulted in Ukraine’s continued westward march and a decline of Russian influence in the country. It’s not clear how Moscow achieves its goals without conducting regime change, or a partitioning of the state, and committing to some form of occupation to retain leverage.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (40)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:

    Biden should say

    “Ukraine is currently not a member of NATO. However, I will see that it rapidly becomes one in the event of an attack or invasion by Russia.”

  2. puck says:

    Putin wants Trump.

    Russian aggression in Ukraine would bring Western economic sanctions. Russia would respond by restricting gas/oil exports which would raise the price of oil (win for Putin) and virtually guarantee Trumpublican wins in US elections (win for Putin).

  3. liberalgeek says:

    I recommend https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/25677643-last-war-of-the-world-island as a guide. The author is a Putin advisor. It leads me to think that Putin won’t be satisfied until he gets the band back together.

  4. Delawarelefty says:

    Putin, like a much stronger Trump, is just a punk assed bully. He is the type that you must stand up against and spit in his eye. If you don’t, much worse to come. Russia has an economy the size of Italy. Economically and militarily break him.

    • delacrat says:

      Delaware”lefty”,

      I recommend that you adhere to a strict diet of NO CORPORATE MEDIA for 1 month.

      You’ll both feel and think better.

      • Delawarelefty says:

        delacrat, I recommend that you get a clue. Read some recent history. Your mind will clear. Putin is the biggest threat this country has seen in 70 yrs. Is Chamberlain (google) your last name?

  5. jason330 says:

    The plain facts of the situation mock REV and Delacrat. In February and March 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. Russia has also invaded the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.

    A unified West is going to be needed to avoid war, not start one. Putin has already seen to that part of it.

    • Bill Martin says:

      Plain facts? Ukraine is a failing kleptocracy that ostensibly exports natural gas and uses photocopies of Kohl’s Cash for currency. Russia is a hollowed-out shell of the Soviet Union; and, to whoever said that Putin is the greatest threat to the US in 70 years, I strong-disagree and will instead give mad props to the (pre-Havana Syndrome) CIA, the actual champs.

      There’s absolutely no reason for this country to get involved in any international conflict now, and for those who want to may I suggest changing the channel or starting a new story. I’m really curious how libs on the homefront acknowledge so many domestic issues that need advocacy, but remain infatuated with Cold War-era tropes like a “unified West” and interminable cold (or hot, I guess?) conflicts.

      • jason330 says:

        “I’m really curious how libs on the homefront acknowledge so many domestic issues that need advocacy, but remain infatuated with Cold War-era tropes like a “unified West” and interminable cold (or hot, I guess?) conflicts.”

        I’ll bite. Empathy (?)

        “Infatuated with Cold War-era tropes” misses the mark by a lot tho.

        FWIW, something like “polly-annaish interest in the weak not being run over by the strong” is probably a lot closer.

        • delacrat says:

          Viet Nam syndrome and World’s Policeman Fallacy (rebranded recently as R2P) not being taught in K-12.

          Cruise Missile Liberals every where on the idiot box pushing the Russiagate hoax, even on blogs like this, who really are old enough to know better.

          • Jason330 says:

            Your straw man argument that the CIA is bad and the media is dishonest isn’t getting any traction (even in this blog) because nobody is saying the CIA is good and the media is honest.

      • liberalgeek says:

        I would argue that Ukraine is a recovering kleptocracy. Their pro-Russian kleptocrats were run out of town and are living in exile in Moscow. There are undoubtedly a few of them left, but one way to look at this is that the kleptocracy is trying to get back in power and using Russian military power to do so.

        Is there value in keeping the largest country in Europe from becoming a vassal state of Russia? Perhaps.

        In the context of the havoc that he has likely wrought from Brexit to 2016 US interference to Georgia (the country) and to Crimea and now Belarus, he is gaining power through destabilization.

        I’m not sure that we need to intervene militarily, but I’m not in the “do nothing” camp.

  6. Claymonster says:

    Putin’s just flexing his muscle, seeing how serious the US is with respect to maintaining European stability in the post cold war era. Ukraine is not/never was the endgame. He manipulated Trump, and Biden still doesn’t recognize the gravity of the situation.

    As far as retaliatory measures for an invasion? Sanctions haven’t worked yet.

  7. RE Vanella says:

    When do you suggest we take our nukes out of Turkey and Europe? Oh, never. OK.

    The idea that this is some Ideology of Russian aggression and world domination specific to Putin is embarrassing

    • Alby says:

      But so is the idea that we could simply withdraw from the world after trying to control it for 75 years.

      It’s not about us, fellas. It’s about Europe.

      To be clear, I’m not suggesting we do this or that. I have no idea what we should do, and if they were honest even the people who are saying what we should do would admit they don’t know either.

      But pretending that it just doesn’t concern us is, frankly, bullshit. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that is your problem, not everyone else’s. It’s like a color-blind person telling me there’s no such thing as red.

      Also, too, let’s not pretend that it matters even the tiniest bit what any of us thinks or says. These decisions will be made without your input, and us arguing about them accomplishes nothing at all. Well, it probably gives delacrat a reason to keep living, but beyond that, nothing at all.

      • Claymonster says:

        It’s not about nuclear disarmament, acquisition of land or creation of client states. The global order is shifting and Putin is muscling around to carve outa space. Alby is right that is is our problem, in as much as the global power balance is a zero sum game and if you had to pick one sphere to exist under (US, China, Russia) I know where we all would rather sit

        • Alby says:

          I didn’t say it was our “problem.” I said we assume the responsibility because post WWII that was the agreement.

          Should that change? I don’t know. Neither does anyone else.

      • RE Vanella says:

        Everything concerns us! We have no choice. He’s carving out space, folks. Only we’re allowed to carve out space! Because we’re us, and good.

        I can’t wait till Mélenchon is France PM and pulls out of NATO.

        • Alby says:

          Sure we have a choice. What’s yours? Lay out your response to the situation rather than shit on everyone else’s. Or should I assume that “do nothing” is your response?

          • RE Vanella says:

            Correct. And your choice is to concern ourselves everywhere “our enemies” Russia and China exert influence. I mean we sent them two armies worth of weapons and CIA + special ops. That’s enough.

            I love that unless someone lays out a specific geopolitical plan their ideas are dismissed. I disagree with your entire premise. You love setting all the boundaries of the discussion and exactly what counts as a response.

            I’m not afraid of Putin or Russia and Ukraine would matter more if we didn’t have a nuke arsenal in Turkey.

            How dare Putin make provocative moves. That’s for us to do!

        • Claymonster says:

          You have to lay out a plan, because nothing exists in a vacuum. There is no neutral territory, just boundary areas in spheres of influence. Recognize that three spheres currently exist and you cannot opt out of that paradigm

          • RE Vanella says:

            I’m opting out of the paradigm. I’m sorry.

          • Alby says:

            Go ahead and opt out. Don’t be surprised that others don’t, and don’t act superior about it. If you showed any understanding of the situation I might agree with you, but your response is simply to stick your head in the sand and pretend that the US isn’t the protector of “the West” by post-WWII design.

            I think “protecting” Ukraine isn’t and shouldn’t be the job of “the West,” but that doesn’t involve pretending that Russia has Europe’s interests at heart.

  8. RE Vanella says:

    Imagine if China or Russia sent troops to central American when Obama and Hillary did the the 2009 Honduran coup d’état. That would have been dope.

  9. Alby says:

    For the record, I am against admitting Ukraine to NATO, but then I was against admitting most of the former Warsaw Pact nations; the last time I checked, none of them is near the North Atlantic.

    REV and delacrat have a legitimate point: The media is using Russia as a Big Baddie, and war always attracts eyeballs, whether the public is for it or against it. From what little I follow about this region, I assume this is all about petrochemicals. Europe gets a third of its natural gas from Russia; some of the pipelines run through Ukraine.

    I doubt an actual hot war would be anyone’s preference; I see headlines indicating Puting wants to install a pro-Russia government, which is nothing we don’t do the world over. I would find that far preferable to any military engagement. Would that be good or bad for Ukraine? I really don’t care. It’s not as if Russia would be laying waste to paradise. Most of those former SSRs would probably be better off under the Russian umbrella.

  10. Alby says:

    Just saw your response. As you often do, you assume what I think and it’s in direct opposition to what I actually think.

    I asked you what the response should be. I’m still waiting. It’s a simple question. What should “we” do? My answer is “I don’t know.” Surely you can muster one up.

  11. Ben says:

    All I know is, if Sarah Palin had stayed governor of Alaska, keeping an eye on Putin, she’d probably have put a stop to this.